Revisiting M&M with Taxes: an Alternative Equilibrating Process

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Revisiting M&M with Taxes: an Alternative Equilibrating Process International Journal of Financial Studies Article Revisiting M&M with Taxes: An Alternative Equilibrating Process Kenneth J. Kopecky 1,*, Zhichuan (Frank) Li 2,*, Timothy F. Sugrue 3 and Alan L. Tucker 4 1 Department of Finance, Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA 19122, USA 2 Department of Finance, Ivey Business School, University of Western Ontario, London, ON N6G 0N1, Canada 3 Department of Finance, School of Business, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 13699, USA; [email protected] 4 Independent Researcher, Newtown, PA 18940, USA; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] (K.J.K.); fl[email protected] (Z.L.); Tel.: +1-386-957-3372 (K.J.K.); +1-519-661-4112 (Z.L.) Received: 24 October 2017; Accepted: 8 January 2018; Published: 16 January 2018 Abstract: Modigliani and Miller present an equity-quantity shifting equilibrating process to achieve an optimal firm value in the presence of corporate taxes. However, in the era in which they derived their various propositions regarding the relation between a firm’s value and its capital structure, well-capitalized takeover specialists including private equity firms and sovereign funds did not exist, at least by today’s standards. In this paper we develop a simple arbitrage strategy, made viable by the presence of takeover firms, which presents an alternative equilibrating process to achieve the same optimal firm value. This alternative process is markedly different from that of the Modigliani and Miller theorem in terms of its predictions for debt use and restores the prospect of capital structure irrelevancy despite the existence of corporate taxes. Keywords: capital structure; debt; interest deduction; equity price adjustment JEL Classification: G30; G32 1. Introduction In their seminal paper, Modigliani and Miller(1963) (“MM63” hereafter) demonstrate that in the presence of corporate taxes with the ability to expense the interest paid on its debt, a firm’s value is maximized by all-debt financing. To achieve their corner solution equilibrium, MM63 tacitly rely on the existence of a liquid debt market. Firms can readily lever their capital structure by issuing debt and retiring equity in a strategy that may be aptly described as “equity-quantity shifting”. The issuance of debt necessitates a competitive credit market, i.e., one that is “deep” or price elastic. Given the existence of organized debt markets with large institutional participants at the time, MM63’s reliance on an equity-quantity shifting equilibrating process is clearly reasonable. However, capital markets have changed considerably since the era in which Modigliani and Miller (“MM”) derived their various propositions regarding capital structure. Such change motivates us to investigate whether MM63’s equity-quantity shifting equilibrating process is unique, or instead if the same optimal firm value can be obtained via an alternative no-arbitrage process. A major change in capital markets is the advent of well-capitalized takeover firms including private equity firms and sovereign funds. These entities did not exist during the MM era, at least by today’s standards. In this paper we demonstrate that the existence of such entities gives rise to a viable alternative equilibrating process that we dub “equity-price shifting”. As demonstrated herein, this alternative no-arbitrage process is as straightforward and achievable as the equity-quantity shifting process of MM63, and it leads to the same optimal firm value. Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018, 6, 10; doi:10.3390/ijfs6010010 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijfs Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018, 6, 10 2 of 12 The intuition behind our approach is simple, and is grounded in sound economic theory as old as that of Pareto: If a firm “X” is under-levered, a private equity firm “Y” will be incentivized to buy X’s stock and optimally re-capitalize firm X. However, in an efficient equity market the stock price of firm X will reflect the takeover pressure, which logically implies that the presumably lost value due to under-leverage is already captured in firm X’s stock price. Thus, there is no need to actually issue debt. To use an analogy, Pareto’s theory demonstrates that if there are two fields, one with crops and the other fallow, the fallow field will command a nearly equal price to the one with crops because of the prospect of sowing and reaping the fallow field. Importantly, one does not have to actually grow crops on the fallow field in order for its market value to remain close to that of the other field. The mere prospect of growing crops will ensure a small difference in values, if viable buyers of the fallow field exist. Similarly, the difference between the values of two firms, one levered and one not, will be small in the presence of corporate taxes, even if the latter firm remains unlevered, because of the prospect of levering the all-equity firm, i.e., the existence of a viable takeover entity that will buy and financially restructure the under-levered firm. In the era of MM, there were few takeover entities. Thus, an equity quantity-shifting process, i.e., actual debt issuance, was required to optimize firm value. However, today’s markets are replete with well-financed takeover firms and active take-over markets now exist in many countries. As perverse as it may initially seem, in today’s market environment we do not actually require the issuance of debt in order to capture the value presented by the debt-induced interest tax credit—just as we do not need to actually grow crops in order for our fallow field to command a value close to that of a field with crops. The benefit of the interest debt shield may be already reflected in the equity component of a firm’s value. If the equity-quantity shifting mechanism of MM63 and our equity-price shifting mechanism both lead to the same optimal firm value, then why might one be interested in the equity-price shifting process? The answer to this question lies in its consequences for observed debt use. It has been observed that, contrary to the implications of the traditional static tradeoff model of capital structure choice, many corporations appear to possess sub-optimal capital structures because they do not fully utilize the debt tax shield (cf. Miller 1977; Graham 2000). Explanations advanced to resolve this under-leverage puzzle have focused on leverage mis-measurement (cf. Welch 2011) and distress costs mis-measurement (cf. Almeida and Philippon 2007); the existence, but empirical omission, of non-debt tax shields including tax shelters (cf. Graham and Tucker 2006; Lin et al. 2014) and pension contributions (cf. Shivdasani and Stefanescu 2010); and the omission of international tax considerations (cf. Huizinga et al. 2008). In this paper we propose an alternative theoretical explanation to this empirical puzzle that is unrelated to the aforementioned explanations. More specifically, we present a partial equilibrium debt tradeoff model that, through the introduction of a takeover market and a simple trading strategy, demonstrates the optimality of lower leverage for a cohort of firms, and, moreover, that this apparently sub-optimal capital structure can persist even in the absence of any special debt-corporate conflicts. The cohort of firms is likely to consist of firms whose equity can be absorbed by potential acquirers such as private equity firms.1 The above result depends on two reasonable assumptions: First, a friction exists in the form of a fixed cost associated with corporate recapitalization. Second, there exists today a takeover market that is reasonably competitive and efficient.2 Given these two assumptions we show that the stock 1 The equilibrating force presented in this paper does not require the takeover firm to be a private equity firm. Other institutional investors are potential candidates. Moreover, still other investors—knowing that private equity and other takeover firms may act—may be incentivized to purchase the stocks of the sub-optimally capitalized firms, thus providing for an overall larger pool of capital to finance the purchase of these stocks. 2 The notion that external markets can influence the investing, financing, and other decisions of a firm (and, therefore, its value) is not novel. For example, the existence of a hostile takeover market is often cited as a reason for managers to limit their costly agency behaviors. Also, the equilibrating process in standard tradeoff models relies on the existence of a deep external debt marketplace that allows firms to increase their leverage in order to pocket the interest tax shield associated with debt financing. Int. J. Financial Stud. 2018, 6, 10 3 of 12 value of a firm that does not recapitalize in the presence of a tax shield is not necessarily determined by the standard discounted cash flow model. Furthermore, we show that the fixed internal cost of recapitalization, paid either explicitly or implicitly with the firm’s resources, may be only one component of the recapitalization cost perceived by the firm. Even if this internal cost is known and it appears optimal to recapitalize internally, a firm may nonetheless opt to remain with an apparently sub-optimal capital structure. In this regard, our model also provides insight into the observed rigidity of within-firm capital structures (cf. Fama and French 2002), at least for a cohort of firms. As their name suggests, tradeoff models attempt to determine an optimal capital structure by weighing the costs and benefits of debt utilization. Empirically, tradeoff models—either static or dynamic, and whether estimated at the cross-sectional or within-firm level—have largely provided an inadequate fit for the data. A prominent work by Graham and Leary(2011) reviews the major theories, including trade-off theory and its shortcomings; it is important to study the trade-off theory further as it maintains a prominent position, to this day, in the literature, textbooks, and classroom.
Recommended publications
  • Redalyc.HOW MUCH DO the TAX BENEFITS of DEBT ADD to FIRM VALUE? EVIDENCE from SPANISH LISTED FIRMS
    Revista de Economía Aplicada ISSN: 1133-455X [email protected] Universidad de Zaragoza España CLEMENTE-ALMENDROS, JOSÉ A.; SOGORB-MIRA, FRANCISCO HOW MUCH DO THE TAX BENEFITS OF DEBT ADD TO FIRM VALUE? EVIDENCE FROM SPANISH LISTED FIRMS Revista de Economía Aplicada, vol. XXV, núm. 74, 2017, pp. 105-129 Universidad de Zaragoza Zaragoza, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=96953039004 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative E Revista de Economía AplicadaA Número 74 (vol. XXV), 2017, págs. 105 a 129 HOW MUCH DO THE TAX BENEFITS OF DEBT ADD TO FIRM VALUE? EVIDENCE FROM SPANISH LISTED FIRMS * JOSÉ A. CLEMENTE-ALMENDROS Universidad Politécnica de Valencia FRANCISCO SOGORB-MIRA Universidad CEU Cardenal Herrera The potentially important impact of taxation on corporate financing decisions is widely recognized despite the fact that the empirical evidence is far from conclusive. In this study, we assess the debt tax benefits of Spanish listed firms throughout the period 2007-2013. Specifically, using a simulation ap- proach, we found the capitalized value of gross interest deductions amounts to approximately 6.4% of firms’ market value, while the net debt benefit (of personal taxes) is estimated at 2.1%, in contrast to the traditional 11.4% (i.e. marginal tax rate times debt). Conversely, the panel data regression approach reveals a 13.6% (34.2%) debt tax shield in terms of firm (debt) value.
    [Show full text]
  • Debt Overhang and Non-Distressed Debt Restructuring
    Pascal Frantz and Norvald Instefjord Debt overhang and non-distressed debt restructuring Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Frantz, Pascal and Instefjord, Norvald (2018) Debt overhang and non- distressed debt restructuring. Journal of Financial Intermediation. ISSN 1042-9573 (can be copied from the metadata) [Title of Journal to include link to journal home page] DOI: 10.1016/j.jfi.2018.08.002 © 2018 Elsevier Inc. This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/90212/ Available in LSE Research Online: September 2018 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. Debt Overhang and Non-Distressed Debt Restructuring∗ Pascal Frantzy and Norvald Instefjordz yLondon School of Economics zEssex Business School, University of Essex Fourth draft (August 17, 2018) ∗We thank for comments the editor (Charles Calomiris) and an anonymous referee.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Avoidance Behaviour Towards the Cost of Debt Indah Masri* Dwi Martani
    Int. J. Trade and Global Markets, Vol. 7, No. 3, 2014 235 Tax avoidance behaviour towards the cost of debt Indah Masri* Faculty of Economic Pancasila University, Jakarta, Indonesia E-mail: [email protected] *Corresponding author Dwi Martani Accounting Department, University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia E-mail: [email protected] Abstract: The aim of the research is to analyse tax avoidance behaviour to cost of debt (COD) moderated by tax rate changes and family ownership structure. The research used the sample manufacturing firms in Indonesia Stock Exchange for the period 2008–2010. The study finds that tax avoidance has positive influence on COD. Tax avoidance creates a risk thereby increasing the COD. In the period before tax rate reduction, the influence of tax avoidance on COD is smaller compared with the period after tax reduction; this indicates the presence of earning management conducted by the company before tax rate reduction. Family ownership structure causes greater influence over tax avoidance on COD; this shows that family ownership increases tax aggressive behaviour. The results of this research are contrary with the research conducted by Lim (2011), which shows negative relationship between tax avoidance and the COD. Keywords: tax avoidance; cost of debt; tax rates change; family ownership. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Masri, I. and Martani, D. (2014) ‘Tax avoidance behaviour towards the cost of debt’, Int. J. Trade and Global Markets, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp.235–249. Biographical notes: Indah Masri did her post-graduation in Science of Accounting at the University of Indonesia in 2012.
    [Show full text]
  • Hybrid Instruments and the Debt-Equity Distinction in Corporate Taxation
    COMMENTS Hybrid Instruments and the Debt-Equity Distinction in Corporate Taxation Debt and equity are treated differently for many purposes in federal tax law. The most important difference is that payments made on debt may be deducted in computing a corporation's tax- able income,1 while payments made on equity may not. Although this distinction is well-settled, it has little theoretical basis2 and is not clearly drawn in the tax law.3 As a result, there has for a long time been confusion over how to classify, for tax purposes, instru- ments that do not closely resemble "ordinary" debt or "ordinary" equity.4 Until 1969, the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) provided no guidance in defining "debt" or "equity." 5 In the Tax Reform Act of 1969,6 Congress added section 3857 to the Code in an attempt to deal with this problem. Rather than provide a statutory definition of debt and equity, however, Congress simply delegated to the Sec- retary of the Treasury the power to issue regulations that would "determine whether an interest in a corporation is to be treated .. as stock or indebtedness."8 In 1980, the Treasury Department finally proposed regulations under section 385 that would have provided a framework for classifying debt and equity for federal tax purposes. 9 The proposed regulations included a "test" enabling 1 I.R.C. § 163(a) (1982). 2 See infra notes 70-96 and accompanying text. 3 See infra notes 21-23 and accompanying text. 4 See infra notes 21-45 and accompanying text. 5 See Plumb, The Federal Income Tax Significance of Corporate Debt: A Critical Analysis and a Proposal, 26 TAX L.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating the Tax Benefits of Debt
    ESTIMATING THE TAX by John R. Graham, Fuqua School of Business, BENEFITS OF DEBT Duke University* n 1958, Nobel Laureates Franco ers and the U.S. government. Panel A of Figure 1 Modigliani and Merton Miller published shows that if the corporate tax rate is 33.3%, the I their famous irrelevance theorems.1 One government gets one-third of the pie for an all-equity implication from these theorems is that firm, and stockholders get the remaining two-thirds. the value of a company is not affected by the way the But if the firm chooses to finance with 50% debt and company finances its operations; the value of a corporate income is taxed, a new wrinkle emerges company equals the present value of its operational (Panel B). Because the interest on debt is tax cash flows, regardless of whether the firm finances deductible, by financing with debt a firm reduces its its projects by issuing stocks, bonds, or some other tax liability, thereby reducing the portion of the pie security. To derive the irrelevance theorems, Modigliani given away to the government. As long as debtholders and Miller had to make very strong “perfect capital receive their portion of the pie, the stockholders get markets” assumptions: lenders and borrowers have the what’s left over (because they are the residual same borrowing rate, there are no corporate or owners of the firm). Therefore, stockholders get to personal taxes, and all players in the economy have pocket the tax savings that are achieved by financing access to the same information, to name a few.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Structure and International Debt Shifting
    EUROPEAN ECONOMY EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL AFFAIRS ECONOMIC PAPERS ISSN 1725-3187 http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/index_en.htm N° 263 December 2006 Capital structure and international debt shifting by Harry Huizinga (Tilburg University) Luc Laeven (International Monetary Fund) Gaëtan Nicodème (European Commission) Economic Papers are written by the Staff of the Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, or by experts working in association with them. The “Papers” are intended to increase awareness of the technical work being done by the staff and to seek comments and suggestions for further analyses. Views expressed represent exclusively the positions of the author and do not necessarily correspond to those of the European Commission. Comments and enquiries should be addressed to the: European Commission Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs Publications BU1 - -1/13 B - 1049 Brussels, Belgium ISBN 92-79-03839-7 KC-AI-06-263-EN-C ©European Communities, 2006 Capital Structure and International Debt Shifting Harry Huizinga* (Tilburg University and CEPR) Luc Laeven (International Monetary Fund and CEPR) and Gaëtan Nicodème (European Commission and Solvay Business School (ULB)) November 2006 Abstract This paper presents a model of a multinational firm’s optimal debt policy that incorporates international taxation factors. The model yields the prediction that a multinational firm’s indebtedness in a country depends on a weighted average of national tax rates and differences between national and foreign tax rates. These differences matter as multinationals have an incentive to shift debt to high-tax countries. The predictions of the model are tested using a novel firm-level dataset for European multinationals and their subsidiaries, combined with newly collected data on the international tax treatment of dividend and interest streams.
    [Show full text]
  • Interrelationship Between Taxes, Capital Structure Decisions and Value of the firm: a Panel Data Study on Indian Manufacturing firms
    Munich Personal RePEc Archive Interrelationship between taxes, capital structure decisions and value of the firm: A panel data study on Indian manufacturing firms Sinha, Pankaj and Bansal, Vishakha Faculty of Management Studies, University of Delhi 5 June 2014 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/58310/ MPRA Paper No. 58310, posted 05 Sep 2014 07:42 UTC Interrelationship between taxes, capital structure decisions and value of the firm: A panel data study on Indian manufacturing firms Pankaj Sinha and Vishakha Bansal Faculty of Management Studies University of Delhi Abstract: Since the development of efficient proxies for taxes, many researchers have proved the existence of impact of tax on financing decisions. The ultimate aim of each business decision is to enhance the value of the firm; hence it is important to study the tax implications of financing decisions on the firm’s value. In this study an attempt is made to study the interrelationship between taxes, financing decisions and value of the firm. A panel data of 188 Indian manufacturing firms over a period from 1990 to 2013 is employed to assess the relationship. Unlike the results of Fama and French (1998), the analyses undertaken in this study is able to capture the tax effects of debt. It shows clearly that companies consider partial consequences of employing debt and justify the higher use of debt. This study brings forth the empirical evidence that the personal tax implications flowing through financing decisions contribute towards forming perceptions of the investors and thus may affect the firm value in the opposite direction. Keywords: debt, equity, dividends, firm value, corporate tax, personal tax, panel data, fixed effects model JEL Codes: C 23, G32, G38 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Have the Tax Benefits of Debt Been Overestimated?
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Accounting Papers Wharton Faculty Research 11-2010 Have the Tax Benefits of Debt Been Overestimated? Jennifer L. Blouin University of Pennsylvania John E Core University of Pennsylvania Wayne R. Guay University of Pennsylvania Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/accounting_papers Part of the Accounting Commons, and the Taxation Commons Recommended Citation Blouin, J. L., Core, J., & Guay, W. R. (2010). Have the Tax Benefits of Debt Been Overestimated?. Journal of Financial Economics, 98 (2), 195-213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2010.04.005 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/accounting_papers/100 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Have the Tax Benefits of Debt Been Overestimated? Abstract We re-examine the claim that many corporations are underleveraged in that they fail to take full advantage of debt tax shields. We show prior results suggesting underleverage stems from biased estimates of tax benefits from interest deductions. We develop improved estimates of marginal tax rates using a non- parametric procedure that produces more accurate estimates of the distribution of future taxable income. We show that additional debt would provide firms with much smaller tax benefits than epr viously thought, and when expected distress costs and difficult-to-measure non-debt tax shields are also considered, it appears plausible that most firms have tax-efficient capital structures. Keywords debt, capital structure, marginal tax rates, taxes Disciplines Accounting | Taxation This journal article is available at ScholarlyCommons: https://repository.upenn.edu/accounting_papers/100 Have the tax benefits of debt been overestimated? Jennifer Blouin* Email: [email protected] Phone: (215) 898-1266 John E.
    [Show full text]
  • Debt, Taxes, and Liquidity∗
    Debt, Taxes, and Liquidity∗ Patrick Boltony Hui Chenz Neng Wangx May 26, 2014 Abstract We analyze a model of optimal capital structure and liquidity choice based on a dynamic tradeoff theory for financially constrained firms. In addition to the classical tradeoff between the expected tax advantages of debt and bankruptcy costs, we introduce a cost of external financing for the firm, which generates a precautionary demand for liquidity and an optimal liquidity management policy for the firm. An important new cost of debt financing in this context is an endogenous debt servicing cost: debt payments drain the firm’s valuable liquidity reserves and thus impose higher expected external financing costs on the firm. The precautionary demand for liquidity also means that realized earnings are separated in time from payouts to shareholders, implying that the classical Miller-formula for the net tax benefits of debt no longer holds. Our model offers a novel perspective for the \debt conservatism puzzle" by showing that financially constrained firms choose to limit debt usages in order to preserve their liquidity. In some cases, they may not even exhaust their risk-free debt capacity. ∗We thank Phil Dybvig, Wei Jiang, Hong Liu, Gustavo Manso, Jonathan Parker, Steve Ross, and seminar participants at MIT Sloan, Stanford, UC Berkeley Haas, Washington University, University of Wisconsin-Madison, TCFA 2013, and WFA 2013 for helpful comments. yColumbia University, NBER and CEPR. Email: [email protected]. Tel. 212-854-9245. zMIT Sloan School of Management and NBER. Email: [email protected]. Tel. 617-324-3896. xColumbia Business School and NBER. Email: [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Private Equity Partners Get Rich at Taxpayer Expense
    CEPR CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND POLICY RESEARCH Private Equity Partners Get Rich at Taxpayer Expense By Eileen Appelbaum and Rosemary Batt* July 2017 Center for Economic and Policy Research 1611 Connecticut Ave. NW tel: 202–293–5380 Suite 400 fax: 202–588–1356 Washington, DC 20009 www.cepr.net * Eileen Appelbaum is a Senior Economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Rosemary Batt is the Alice Hanson Cook Professor of Women and Work at the ILR School, Cornell University. She is also a Professor in Human Resource Studies and International and Comparative Labor. Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 Excessive Use of Debt ............................................................................................................... 2 Tax Arbitrage ............................................................................................................................. 3 Pass Through Entities ............................................................................................................... 4 Carried Interest Loophole ......................................................................................................... 5 Management Fee Waivers ......................................................................................................... 7 Management Services Agreements (Dividends Disguised as Monitoring Fees) ..................... 9 Exception to the Publicly Traded Partnership Rule ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Internal Equity, Taxes, and Capital Structure
    Internal Equity, Taxes, and Capital Structure Jonathan Lewellen Dartmouth College and NBER [email protected] Katharina Lewellen Dartmouth College [email protected] Revision: March 2006 First draft: June 2003 We are grateful to Nittai Bergman, Ian Cooper, Harry DeAngelo, Linda DeAngelo, Murray Frank, Chris Hennessy, Dirk Jenter, Stew Myers, Micah Oficer, Jeff Pontiff, Jim Poterba, Josh Rauh, Ilya Strebulaev, Toni Whited, and workshop participants at Baruch, Boston College, BYU, Insead, MIT, Oregon, UBC, USC, Wisconsin, and the 2004 EFA, 2005 AFA, and 2005 WFA annual meetings for helpful comments. We also thank Scott Weisbenner for providing data. Internal Equity, Taxes, and Capital Structure Abstract We argue that trade-off theory’s simple distinction between debt and ‘equity’ is fundamentally incomplete because firms have three, not two, distinct sources of funds: debt, internal equity, and external equity. Internal equity (retained earnings) is generally less costly than external equity for tax reasons, and it may be cheaper than debt. It follows that, even without information problems or adjustment costs, optimal leverage is a function of internal cashflows, debt ratios can wander around without a specific target, and a firm’s cost of capital depends on its mix of internal and external finance, not just its mix of debt and equity. The trade-off between debt, retained earnings, and external equity depends on the tax basis of investors’ shares relative to current price. We estimate how the trade-off varies cross-sectionally and through time for a large sample of U.S. firms. 1. Introduction The finance literature has long offered a simple model of how taxes affect financing decisions, familiar to generations of MBA students.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cost of Debt∗
    The Cost of Debt∗ Jules H. van Binsbergen John R. Graham Jie Yang Fuqua School of Business Fuqua School of Business Fuqua School of Business Duke University† Duke University‡ Duke University§ and NBER This version: November 2007 Abstract We estimate cost functions for corporate debt using panel data from 1980 to 2006. We use exogenous shifts of Graham’s (2000) debt benefit curves to identify the marginal cost curve of debt. We recover marginal cost functions that are positively sloped, as expected. By integrating the area between the benefit and cost functions we estimate that the net benefit of debt equals about 3% of asset value. Our findings are consistent over time, across industries, and when accounting for fixed adjustment costs of debt. We show that the marginal cost curve varies with firm characteristics such as size, assets in place, book-to- market ratio, cash flows, cash holdings, and whether the firm pays dividends. As such, our framework provides a new parsimonious environment within which to examine implications from competing capital structure theories. It further allows us to make recommendations about firm-specific optimal debt ratios and to approximate the cost of being under- or overlevered. Finally, we provide easy to use algorithms that allow others to implement firm-specific cost of debt curves. ∗We thank Ravi Bansal, Jonathan Berk, Michael Brandt, Alon Brav, Hui Chen, Simon Gervais, Cam Harvey, Han Hong, Ralph Koijen, Mike Lemmon, Rich Mathews, Bertrand Melenberg, Mitch Petersen, Anamar´ıa Pieschac´on, Adriano Rampini, Michael Roberts, David Robinson, Ilya Strebulaev, George Tauchen, Toni Whited, participants at the 2007 WFA meetings, the 2007 NBER Summer Institute, the 2007 EFA meetings, and seminar participants at Duke University, University of Pittsburgh, and Wharton for helpful comments.
    [Show full text]